It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
However, I would like to point out that George Washington did become a better man after he became a freemason, and I can think of any number of men for whom the same can be said. It may not be true now, but it certainly was once. In fact, hang it all, there is still work to be done, but Rockpuck is a prime example (and I hope he doesn't mind the mention). The personal growth that I have observed in Rockpuck is tangible and yes he is a work in progress and he still has his moments, but he has grown immeasurably as a person in the time I have been on ATS either way. It may be 'normal' maturing but I also think that Freemasonry is a part of it, so I'll retain a little of my optimism if you don't mind.
Originally posted by JoshNorton
It is my personal opinion that the Shriners are often cut from a different cloth than regular Masons. While it is still a requirement that a Shriner be a Master Mason, quite often there are men who join Masonry with the sole goal of becoming a Shriner, not taking the lessons of the Blue Lodge to heart.
Well, it's a good thing he's NOT a Mason then, isn't it?
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I have no personal grudge or dislike of Bush, I think the man is a buffoon certainly, but I don't think that he can even be described as a politician, he is a figure head - but that aside he is not a man of good morals in my opinion.
This, to me, sums up the rationale on why I would not be bothered with George Bush being a Mason; it is your opinion. It may be the opinion of others that think he is moral and upright and to think that Sentator Obama is immoral. All the more reason for us not to discuss politics or religion while in lodge.
Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I sincerely doubt you had an admiration to begin with if you make statements like this. This is exactly the sort of rhetoric used by those who have been looking for a reason to bash an institution "well...I thought it was great, but now I know you guys are just horrible."
Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
If you had any real like for the institution you would not be easily persuaded by the fact that no - the institution does not line up with your ideology and no - we wouldn't kick George Bush out if he were a mason just because you hate him. If you are that easily swayed, it will be difficult to find many groups you like, as your ideology is very narrowly defined.
Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
I find this rather insulting, and it continues your line of rhetoric like this that is condescending at best. Just because an institution doesn't line up with your ideology does not mean its "lost itself" - the worthiness of an institution is not measured by how much you agree with its (lack of) political stances. If you have any evidence of how freemasonry has lost its way, please provide it.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Naturally, I do still like to go off on my tangents. Don't hate me for who I am.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
So Politics and religion aside, are you allowed to discuss your work?
I know very little about Barack Obama. I have no opinion of him either way. Bush, I have seen a lot of. I don't dislike the man, I feel a little sorry for him at times...but whatever he is, he is the defacto man at the top and he has done nothing to prevent the corruption that is occuring in your country. He did wage aggressive war.
To use Fire's terminology, I am not a 'joiner', and perhaps for the very reason that I could not slap George Bush on the back and call him brother, just I could not to Blair - but damn sure I could take them over my knee and give them a good hiding. It is not to me to say whether he is a good President or not, he is not my President, but I can quite confidently say that at the very least he is a very weak man, and quite possibly a criminal. But that is my opinion.
That said, I do believe in redemption, so perhaps a l'il brotherly love could change him...
That is my understanding, yes.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I take it that Shriners do go more for the dining and 'networking'?
I'm not entirely certain what you're getting at... It's my opinion that the three degrees of the Blue Lodge hold enough concentrated teaching in their ritual for a man to be able to spend his entire life studying and contemplating them. I have yet to read each of the 32 degrees in the Scottish Rite. I will say that the 32° did have a particular resonance with me. They're all allegorical plays, and they each have their own lessons to teach. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the three degrees of the Blue Lodge are superficial though.
But while you're criticised for the 'higher degrees', it may be the lower you are the more, shall we say superficial your association and understanding of the lessons. So the 'antis' would perhaps be better concentrating their attention at the bottom of the scale???
He didn't become president overnight. If he's been a member for any length of time prior to his running for president, there would have been people who knew about it, perhaps even when he ran for governor of Texas. It would have come out long before he even got to where he is today. If you're accusing the Grand Lodges of lying, then you're on one hand praising the general trend towards morality that Masonry presents, while on the other hand claiming it would intentionally make false statements. I find the truth much easier to defend than lies...
I don't really believe he is either, I am kind of playing devil's advocate. BUT, how can you be sure? Perhaps the lodge concerned is too ashamed to mention it?
If such a lodge existed, it would still have to receive its charter from a Grand Lodge, or it wouldn't be a real lodge. At least not in the eyes of regular Masons. Any group of people can get together and decide to call themselves Masons for whatever reason. They could even download the rituals and try to do them word for word etc. But without recognition and a charter from a Grand Lodge, the majority of the Masonic world would snub them and call them poseurs. They would be entirely isolated, which doesn't help any conspiracy theorist who might think they'd leverage the power of Masonry as a whole to their ends.
Perhaps its a special CIA lodge that doesn't mix. In reality there is no sure fire way of knowing for definate is there?
I'm not you and you make your own choices. Surely it doesn't bother you what I think? I don't think that you are wrong, just that I couldn't do that and having read the lectures I am quite surprised that someone who broke international law and committed crimes against his own country could be welcomed into masonry. My mistake or misinterpretation.
It is not up to me to provide the balance of proof, it is for you to tell me why you think I am wrong - if you are so inclined, your attacking my position, you're not providing a persuasive argument.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
That said, I do believe in redemption, so perhaps a l'il brotherly love could change him...
Or if he were in fact a Mason it might have made him a different person all together.
Originally posted by JoshNorton
I'm not entirely certain what you're getting at
He didn't become president overnight. If he's been a member for any length of time prior to his running for president, there would have been people who knew about it, perhaps even when he ran for governor of Texas. It would have come out long before he even got to where he is today.
If you're accusing the Grand Lodges of lying, then you're on one hand praising the general trend towards morality that Masonry presents, while on the other hand claiming it would intentionally make false statements. I find the truth much easier to defend than lies...
Perhaps its a special CIA lodge that doesn't mix. In reality there is no sure fire way of knowing for definate is there?
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I find the Clermont degrees episode highly interesting for example, and I find it frustrating that so few of the members on these boards, who are also masons, are willing to look at Freemasonry critically (which does not have to mean criticising), as though it is perfect and above question or at times implying that it isn't even interesting! The immediate response to every attempt to explore the craft and its history or symbology is meant with the defensive and an unspoken sense that only 'brothers' should discuss these things or some such nonsense.
Stuart Jacobite Influence
The seed of the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence on the higher degrees may have been a careless and unsubstantiated remark made by John Noorthouk in the 1784 Book of Constitutions of the Premier Grand Lodge of London. It was stated, without support, that King Charles II (older brother and predecessor to James II) was made a Freemason in Holland during the years of his exile (1649–60). However, there were no lodges of Freemasons on the continent during those years. The statement was undoubtedly made to flatter the fraternity by claiming membership for a previous monarch. This folly was then embellished upon by John Robison (1739–1805), a professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, in an anti-Masonic work published in 1797. The lack of scholarship exhibited by him in that work even caused the Encyclopedia Britannica to denounce it.
A German bookseller and Freemason, living in Paris, working under the assumed name of C. Lenning, embellished the story further in a manuscript titled "Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" probably written between 1822 and 1828 at Leipzig. This manuscript was later revised and published by another German Freemason named Friedrich Mossdorf (1757–1830).[17] Lenning stated that King James II of England, after his flight to France in 1688, resided at the Jesuit College of Clermont, where his followers fabricated certain degrees for the purpose of carrying out their political ends.
By the mid-19th century, the story had gained currency. The well-known English Masonic writer, Dr. George Oliver (1782–1867), in his "Historical Landmarks", 1846, carried the story forward and even claimed that King Charles II was active in his attendance at meetings—an obvious invention, for if it had been true, it would not have escaped the notice of the historians of the time. The story was then repeated by the French writers Jean-Baptiste Ragon (1771–1862) and Emmanuel Rebold, in their Masonic histories. Rebold's claim that the high degrees were created and practiced in Lodge Canongate Kilwinning at Edinburgh are entirely false.
James II died in 1701 at the Palace of St. Germain en Laye, and was succeeded in his claims to the British throne by his son, James Edward Stuart (1699–1766), the Chevalier St. George, better known as "the Old Pretender", but recognized as James III by the French King Louis XIV. He was succeeded in his claim by Charles Edward Stuart ("Bonnie Prince Charles"), also known as "the Young Pretender", whose ultimate defeat at the Battle of Culloden in 1746 effectively put an end to any serious hopes of the Stuarts regaining the British crowns.
The natural confusion between the names of the Jesuit College of Clermont, and the short-lived Masonic Chapter of Clermont, a Masonic body that controlled a few high degrees during its brief existence, only served to add fuel to the myth of Stuart Jacobite influence in Freemasonry's high degrees. However, the College and the Chapter had nothing to do with each other. The Jesuit College was located at Clermont, whereas the Masonic Chapter was not. Rather, it was named "Clermont" in honor of the French Grand Master, the Duc de Clermont, and not because of any connection with the Jesuit College of Clermont.
Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Kilgore I get sort of conflicting messages from what you type. While you are one of the genuine people on here I think who are interested in a conversation and not furthering an agenda (as we often see with those asking "questions" about masons), you are seemingly willing to let a a scenario based circumstance about freemasonry (since Bush isn't in a lodge...our feelings toward him if he was a mason would just be guesses) strongly revert your opinion. The nature of the issue at hand is so small...its just confusing to me I guess, given your previous posts.
But thats just it, your blinded by partisanship.
No matter your hatred for Bush, the facts of the matter is no international laws have been broken nor any crimes committed. That the Democrat National Committee would have you believe otherwise is irrelevant, as there are numerous judges who join you in your hated for Bush and would take extraordinary glee in doing all sorts of bad things to him...if they could get away with it legally. But as nothing as nothing illegal has gone on, they can't get away with it.
Bill Clinton did actually break the law, whether you agree with the findings or not, he will forever be the 2nd President impeached by the Congress of the United States. However...he was acquitted by the Senate. As such, even though my level of dislike for Bill Clinton probably rivals your feelings towards Bush, I would still welcome Clinton as a member of the lodge. My politics stop at the lodge door, as long as no one has been convicted of anything illegal. Thats the way it should be - and if you truly read the lectures - you would get that from them. Your either perverting the lectures or ignoring the parts about harmony and brotherly love that go beyond politics.
But he is NOT, so all of this is speculative.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
There are some aspects of the conspiracies surrounding Masonry and the attempts to corrupt it, that do interest me. I find the Clermont degrees episode highly interesting for example,
... and I find it frustrating that so few of the members on these boards, who are also masons, are willing to look at Freemasonry critically...
I would just like to talk about these things without it being assumed that everyone has an agenda.
Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
...Actually I do - and I'm sick of it. Totally, and utterly sick of it.]
Originally posted by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men
As far as the "Clermont" references in Freemasonry, I would be quite interested to read whatcha got. A lot of pseudo-history has been perpetrated by Masons themselves on this subject, which ties into the Strict Observance, the attempted Catholic-takeover of said rite, and whole conundrum that is the Templar/Stuart Jacobite/Jesuit stream. Here's a level-headed account:
Originally posted by Trinityman
Hi KT